1985 (3) TMI 306 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition.
2. Jurisdiction of the Chief of the Army Staff to issue a show cause notice under Rule 14 after acquittal by a court-martial.
3. Interpretation of relevant provisions of the Army Act and Army Rules.

Summary:

1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
The Supreme Court addressed the preliminary objection raised by the Appellants regarding the writ petition's maintainability, arguing it was premature. The Court held that if the Chief of the Army Staff had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned show cause notice after the Respondent was found not guilty by the court-martial on revision, the Respondent would be exposed to the jeopardy of having his explanation and defense rejected, leading to his removal or dismissal from service. The Court concluded that the writ petition was maintainable since the threat of prejudicial action was wholly without jurisdiction.

2. Jurisdiction of the Chief of the Army Staff to Issue Show Cause Notice:
The core issue was whether the Chief of the Army Staff had the authority to issue a show cause notice u/s 14 of the Army Rules after the Respondent was acquitted by a court-martial. The Court examined the relevant provisions of the Army Act and Army Rules, particularly focusing on Section 19, Section 121, and Rule 14. It was argued that having been tried and acquitted by a court-martial, the Respondent could not be subjected to action under Rule 14. However, the Court noted that the general court-martial's finding on revision was not confirmed, rendering it invalid u/s 153. The Court concluded that in the absence of a confirmed finding, a fresh trial by another court-martial was not permissible, and thus, the Chief of the Army Staff could resort to Rule 14.

3. Interpretation of Relevant Provisions:
The Court analyzed the definitions of "inexpedient" and "impracticable" and concluded that in the given circumstances, ordering a fresh trial by a court-martial could be considered both inexpedient and impracticable. The Court held that the Chief of the Army Staff's action in issuing the show cause notice was neither without jurisdiction nor unwarranted in law. The judgment emphasized that the Chief of the Army Staff had the discretion to take action under Rule 14 when the court-martial's finding was not confirmed.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, reversed the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, and dismissed the writ petition filed by the Respondent. The Court also suggested that the Chief of the Army Staff consider the Respondent's conduct and behavior over the intervening period before proceeding further in the matter. No order as to costs was made.